Page 9 of 36 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 356

Thread: The Modern Combat Revolver

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    I thought so to. It's the single worst revolver I've ever owned. I've recounted the trials and tribulations here before if you want to search but basically Ruger couldn't get it to run reliably with all ammo. I bought an aftermarket (longer) firing pin and gave it to a 'smith buddy of mine. He found a big burr in the frame dragging the hammer, Ruger hadn't screwed the bushing in all the way, and the firing pin wasn't hitting primers strong enough for reliable ignition. This was the second one Ruger sent me to replace the original, which was even worse for reliability. The trigger pull was also dog shit, likely due to burrs in the frame.

    Yes you *can* run .45 Auto and .45 Colt through it. Accuracy suffers a bit with Auto, since throats are slightly oversized since it must accommodate Colt as well. Auto and Colt are very unlikely to hit same point of impact so your sights will be right for one of them but not both. The front sight *is* quick change, so if you really want to, you can have multiple front sights and be able to be close for various loads by swapping the front sight on the fly.

    The stock splinter-sized grip is pretty but unless you've got dainty hands it's not much good for getting a grip on the gun. It's really pretty, though.

    It's *very* heavy. You can feel the inertia of the cylinder turn and lock up.

    Mine works a treat now and I put an ugly rubber grip on it so that shooting heavier Colt loads was more pleasant. Shooting .45 Auto is *very* minimal recoil. With all the effort into getting it to run right and with all the shortcomings, if I had it to do over again I wouldn't. I'd go with a dedicated .45 Colt gun. But since I bashed my head against the wall until finally getting that damn gun to work, it's mine now.

    The Super Redhawk is better in every way other then aesthetics, IMO. It's got the GP-100 like trigger system so it can be lighter and still be reliable. After work, my Redhawk is fine but it's not as good as a GP-100. Super Redhawks are just so...space gun meets revolver, though.
    That's a shame to hear, but oh well. So it sounds like if I wanted a .45 Ruger revolver I'd need to get a Super Redhawk (maybe Alaskan?) in .454/.45 Colt and have it cut for moonclips to shoot .45 Auto, though that might raise issues that can't be forseen too. Who knows.

    As of right now the only real thing keeping me from considering S&Ws is the lock, specifically it activating when I don't want it to. I believe it was @DocGKR who once said that at a PD armory he'd visited, there were consistently S&W J-Frame BUGs with locks on the armorer's work bench because they'd locked up.

    Is it something to be concerned about with the larger revolvers? There's also the option of having the lock removed, though I'm not sure if that'd be a good idea for a carry revolver for legal reasons in terms of it being used against you, not that there's anything actually illegal about it.

  2. #82
    The Nostomaniac 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by SCCY Marshal View Post
    This thread got me thinking about the way I'd spec. out a fighting wheelgun if I could bend the ears of an engineering department. Turns out I'm just an old-fashioned plagiarist because it would only be a slight variation of the guns with which Walter Walsh planted so many felons.

    Start with a lockless matte stainless .357 N-frame and seven or eight shot cylinder. Both for capacity and to reduce the weight, prolonging service life while cranking off double-action shots. The cylinder would be fluted, not only to reduce qeight but for index points when reloading and something for leather/kydex to settle in and bind to further reduce chance of an ND going in or out of the holster.

    Thin, smooth trigger for double-action work.

    Barrel length either 3.5" or 4" to give the ammo performance I'd want while carrying easily. The shorter of the two would help further reduce weight. Skeeter Skelton is rolling in his grave but give the barrel the classic Highway Patrolman taper. And please go back to the original fat ampersand for the S&W rollmark. Yes, that bit is pure vanity.

    Sights conventional but with the outer corners of the rear gently rounded over to redice snagging. Baughman front on Highway Patrolman style sloped base rather than the squared one on Walsh's 27. Front sight would also have a 27-style insert but bright yellow with some flashlight-charging UV dye in the resin. Be more visible in the dayling than straight UV dye and, while dimmer in the dark than eclusive UV dye, still be more visible than without.

    Hammer partially bobbed like some current rimfire snubs. Would discourage thumb-cocking but still allow one to easily unlock the cylinder stop to check for cylinder binding.

    Round butt for greatest variety of stock selection. I'd personally opt for round-to-square conversion Pachmayr ploughhandles with exposed backstrap or butchered round-to-square conversion target stocks.

    Revert back to text-based naming conventions. Call it the Bangor Special in honor of Walsh with coastal and bucolic implications.

    Ammunition would ideally be a 158 grain jacketed bullet uncorking around 1,150fps a bit like the old 38/44 Outdoorsman loads but using magnum cases. Bullet construction aiming around 15"-16" penetration in clothed gel. Within bounds for socialwork but on the deep side if four-legged critters need sedation. This should not only give magnum-ish performance while prolonging service life and avoiding excessive recoil but also give a good chance that .38 ammunition carried as a reload would hit rather close to point of aim. I'd also prefer my powder not be flash suppressed or only partially so. The potential phsychological flashbang effect in low light isstuck in my brain.

    Combat revolvers are a 2-3 gun system, not a single unit. Second gun would be a Ruger LCR in 38 Special to keep weight down. If adding a third revolver; make it a 2" round butt model 12 with Baramis, grip adapter, painted feont sight, and fully bobbed hammer. All from factory as the alloy K-frame would need modern redesign to be less fragile than the originals, anyway. Again, no bunghole.

    Id say thats pretty close to my ideal. Im unsure if Id want an N frame though. Id have to have a bit more trigger time on one. K/L grips fit me much better.

    Im not sure the L frame is any tougher than the new Ks but an extra round would be nice but then we are forced to use moon clips.

    Sights Ill diverge a bit more. A meprolight front and c&s fixed rear u notch is my absolute favorite sight picture of any gun.

    A 7 shot 686 mountain gun cut for moon clips could theoretically get me to where I want to go.

  3. #83
    The Nostomaniac 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    igo.i had an earlier .45 colt only 4" redhawk that was plagued with reliability issues as well. I carried it everyday for a year but eventually let it go.

    If I was going to get a .45 DA revolver id go smith

  4. #84
    The Nostomaniac 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    As far as ammo im on the fence. 140grain xtps going 1250fps+ is my normal edc but im also a big fan of a 158gr wn swc at 1250.

    Even with my fixed sighted 2.75" m66 they both hit the same poi. 125gr @ 1200fps do too.

    It seems that as long as the velocity is close the poi is too. 125@1450 is way off.

    .38s are all pretty close too which is weird but a nice surprise.

  5. #85
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by SwampDweller View Post

    Is it something to be concerned about with the larger revolvers? There's also the option of having the lock removed, though I'm not sure if that'd be a good idea for a carry revolver for legal reasons in terms of it being used against you, not that there's anything actually illegal about it.
    The short answer is - yes. The Smith internal lock is a problem on guns of all frame sizes, but most commonly causes problems in lighter guns with heavy recoil.

    Removing the internal lock is the only way to absolutely guarantee you will not experience an issue. A "plug" can be installed and will remedy the hole in the side of your gun situation.

    Since the lock is not a manual safety, I would not be concerned about legal issues, unless you reside someplace where ILS are required by law.

    I've yet to see the mythical prosecutor who is an expert in Smith and Wesson variants and would take the time to figure out your gun had the lock deactivated/removed and simultaneously try to convince a jury that it means something. In fact, I haven't found the former, a prosecutor who is an expert in S&W variants, let alone both.

    In fact over the years the only times I've seen modifications to guns come up - things that are illegal in the state or ATF; lightened trigger pulls arguing negligence in negligent homicides; heavy trigger pulls being argued that repeated pressing equaled intended homicide*.

    *I thought that was clever. IIRC the defendant shot someone 15 times with a gun that had a 10-pound trigger. The prosecutor argued the defendant must have intended to murder the decedent, because he used "150 pounds of force to fire those 15 rounds." Also, IIRC, the defendant was acquitted, but I could be wrong.

  6. #86
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post

    I've yet to see the mythical prosecutor who is an expert in Smith and Wesson variants and would take the time to figure out your gun had the lock deactivated/removed and simultaneously try to convince a jury that it means something. In fact, I haven't found the former, a prosecutor who is an expert in S&W variants, let alone both.
    The prosecutor doesn't have to be an expert. Crime Lab provides the expert, who in turn does a handy report that goes in the file that includes if all factory safeties are working as intended.

    That said, it's unlikely to be an issue in a criminal case, unless the argument is you are negligent. In a civil case, I can absolutely see it coming up as part of the narrative building that you do not value human life, that you intentionally removed a safety device so you are reckless or rash, etc. Yes, there are counters to those arguments. Which you'll pay an attorney an hourly rate to argue for you.

    Definitely one of those things that won't be an issue until it's an issue. Just like "you're fucked" engraved on a dust cover. Zero bearing on the legality of a shoot. Can be used to taint a jury against you even if it's never admitted into court, can cost you in civil court, and is just something else to latch on to if your case happens to be interesting. You think "Shooter Disabled Safety" wouldn't be a headline if you were a Rittenhouse or Zimmerman type case with political/cultural overtones?
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  7. #87
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    The prosecutor doesn't have to be an expert. Crime Lab provides the expert, who in turn does a handy report that goes in the file that includes if all factory safeties are working as intended.
    Just an FYI for folks who have never heard crime lab techs testify, they're the only people with no dog in the fight and their testimony is "just the facts". So whatever you've done to a gun, you better believe they're going to note it.


    Back to the which revolver question. I'd go with my 1985 choice: 4" 586 with Rogers grips (or as close as I could get). Although as @Lon said, if it's high round count, I'd get a few of them.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  8. #88
    Those are both two good points for and against removing the lock. The "safest" option in regard to Smiths might be to get a prelock Smith as Hambo suggested. I certainly ogle at those older prelock Smiths like the 586. One came through the shop I work at on a trade and I had to talk myself out of it.

    My only concern with getting an older revolver stems from my first and only revolver purchase. Ten years ago I purchased a 1980 manufactured blued 6" Colt Python in what looked to be brand new condition (at this point the Python cost me $900. The price seems to have shot up immensely since then). I began shooting it in a serious manner and actually carried it, practicing mostly with 125gr full power .357 Magnum loads. About 500 rounds in, a little plastic piece broke inside the cylinder latch and, while the gun would still function fine, opening the cylinder quickly was a problem. I was quite surprised to find that a 1980s Python actually had plastic inside it. I sent it back to Colt (they were still working on Pythons at the time) and they fixed it for $50, but I was never able to trust it as a serious use handgun again and retired it to mostly safe-queen status.

    My point is, I have reservations about buying an older revolver for serious use because while it may not have been shot a lot, some of the internals still could've aged poorly and be more likely to break. On the other hand, perhaps it wouldn't be a concern with Smiths, as Pythons are not known for being the most durable of revolvers. Any insight on this would be appreciated.

    And so I've been looking at new production revolvers. The Rugers stand out because they don't have a lock known to fail, and they have a reputation for being sturdy and remarkably simple internally for a revolver. I think if I were to go with a new production S&W it would have to have the lock removed for, if nothing else, peace of mind, but even the possibility of it coming back to bite me in criminal or civil court does make me shy away. So for the most part I think it's coming down to a pre-lock used S&W, or a new production Ruger GP100.

  9. #89
    If you can find one and can afford it... The Manurhin MR 73 is what I consider the ultimate fighting revolver. Someday maybe I'll get one but for now a Smith 3" M13 or 686 is quite good. The Achilles heel of any revo is un-burned powder under the ejector star... Bring your toothbrush. One cannot treat them like a Glock.

  10. #90
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by SwampDweller View Post
    So for the most part I think it's coming down to a pre-lock used S&W, or a new production Ruger GP100.
    Where I've arrived is an understanding that any of them is basically an almost-ready-to-shoot gun kit. It's assembled at the factory because that's the easiest way to ensure all the parts are included in the box and keep them organized. It also helps with pre-transfer inspection. But the gun is not ready to go into service until someone qualified has gone through it and inspected every piece, corrected any defects, eliminated characteristics that will lead to excess wear, and done some basic deburring as needed so it looks better and feels better in the hand.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •